billvon 2,691 #51 January 30, 2007 > Obviously, Bush has concluded that he didn't want to claim the hundreds of old shells. . . No, the top US investigator decided that they weren't evidence of an WMD program. And again, I think I have to take his word for it over yours. Most people do. For a while, right wingers had a case that maybe those hidden WMD's justified the war. But unless there's some vast left-wing conspiracy that extends to our own CIA, I think at some point you have to face facts and give up the happy dream that the war was justified. >Someone in a previous described being present when some of these >were found, he thought they were worth mentioning too. No doubt. If I found them, I'd think they were big news too. But sometimes you have to wait until the analysts figure out what's inside them before you make an unfounded claim and put your foot in your mouth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,691 #52 January 30, 2007 > Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance. Again, I think I will have to take his words over yours. Some excerpts from his final report: "The Implementation Resolution 687, nevertheless, brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War. Large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994. While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA." "I shall deal first with cooperation on process. In this regard, it has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While the inspection is not built on the premise of confidence, but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect. And with one exception, it has been [without] problems. We have further had a great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable. Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct." "How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 January 30, 2007 Quote For a while, right wingers had a case that maybe those hidden WMD's justified the war. But unless there's some vast left-wing conspiracy that extends to our own CIA, I think at some point you have to face facts and give up the happy dream that the war was justified. Hindsight is a wonderful method of foreign policy. I seem to remember the grilling laid down by Democrats in front of a camera in debating the failure to prevent the attack. How many of you would have bet your life that Iraq was complying with the terms of surrender? But I've many times said that the WMD question was irrelevent to Washington's (bipartisan) long running desire to get Hussein out of power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,691 #54 January 30, 2007 >But I've many times said that the WMD question was irrelevent to >Washington's (bipartisan) long running desire to get Hussein out of power. I agree. It was simply the one excuse everyone could agree on. Who wouldn't support disarming a madman? That's one reason Blix's inspections could not be allowed to complete - a clean bill of health would have made it much harder to justify an invasion. And while I agree both parties wanted Hussein out of there, the PNAC and its goals were an exclusively GOP creation. A good overview of the PNAC as a blueprint for war with Iraq is given in "The Threatening Storm" by Pollack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 22 #55 January 30, 2007 QuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? i know why i usually stay out of s.c. for goodThe universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #56 January 30, 2007 You really hould stop beliving everything you read on that websiteWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #57 January 30, 2007 QuoteYou really hould stop beliving everything you read on that website It's a common-sense analysis and opinion. That it disagrees with the shrillness of the mainstream media should be cause for insightfulness, not dismissal. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #58 January 30, 2007 Quote The no-fly zones were part of the cease fire, and Operation Desert Storm was not a "UN" event either. Right. They were a temporary measure to help protect the Kurd uprising that Baghdad tried to suppress in the north and the retreating Shiites in the south. The US, Britain and France took part in patrolling the zones. France pulled out in 1996 because the "temporary" humanitarian mission had changed into something else. So basically, the war was over and two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #59 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #60 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou really hould stop beliving everything you read on that website It's a common-sense analysis and opinion. That it disagrees with the shrillness of the mainstream media should be cause for insightfulness, not dismissal. mh . Ok, fairplay. I will re read it and give you my objective opinion as soon as I'm able.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #61 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #62 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #63 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #64 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #65 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #66 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #67 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #68 January 30, 2007 I like steak, mashed potatoes, and asparagus.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #69 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? Bad example to be picking - Germany didn't abide by the 1918 Armistice and see how that turned out. Since Hitler killed himself during the fall, it's unlikely that he was a party to any treaty. Then the Cold War came and the (West) Germans were happy to have US forces in country. These days, have no idea if there's any point to the continued US presence at places like Ramstein and Heidleburg. It's not to watch over the Germans - more like Subic Bay as an advance position base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote...two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Saddam was forced to agree to OUR terms, there was no negotiating. Of course Saddam never recognized the no fly zones. I acknowledge they came after the cease fire, and I say tough shit to Saddam, he lost the war, and was continuing to do bad things. If the US loses a war to Iran as badly as Saddam lost in '91, then we would indeed be subject to them changing the terms at their discretion. Is there some doubt that an unconditional surrender means exactly that? Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire, so he was deserving of military attack based solely on that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... That is a lousy analogy. I disagree with the validity of your comparison. The resolutions were sponsored/written by the US, if the language didn't meet our desires, we could have withdrawn the resolutions completely - the UN would never have passed them. A resolution is not a program run by a beaurocracy with staff, budgets, etc. A resolution is a policy statement, if it is "corrupt", then it is out there in words for all to see. The corruption of the oil for food and other programs/agencies of the UN is not as easy to identify. Big difference.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
Skyrad 0 #60 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou really hould stop beliving everything you read on that website It's a common-sense analysis and opinion. That it disagrees with the shrillness of the mainstream media should be cause for insightfulness, not dismissal. mh . Ok, fairplay. I will re read it and give you my objective opinion as soon as I'm able.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #61 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #62 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #63 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #64 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #65 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #66 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #67 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #68 January 30, 2007 I like steak, mashed potatoes, and asparagus.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #69 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? Bad example to be picking - Germany didn't abide by the 1918 Armistice and see how that turned out. Since Hitler killed himself during the fall, it's unlikely that he was a party to any treaty. Then the Cold War came and the (West) Germans were happy to have US forces in country. These days, have no idea if there's any point to the continued US presence at places like Ramstein and Heidleburg. It's not to watch over the Germans - more like Subic Bay as an advance position base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote...two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Saddam was forced to agree to OUR terms, there was no negotiating. Of course Saddam never recognized the no fly zones. I acknowledge they came after the cease fire, and I say tough shit to Saddam, he lost the war, and was continuing to do bad things. If the US loses a war to Iran as badly as Saddam lost in '91, then we would indeed be subject to them changing the terms at their discretion. Is there some doubt that an unconditional surrender means exactly that? Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire, so he was deserving of military attack based solely on that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... That is a lousy analogy. I disagree with the validity of your comparison. The resolutions were sponsored/written by the US, if the language didn't meet our desires, we could have withdrawn the resolutions completely - the UN would never have passed them. A resolution is not a program run by a beaurocracy with staff, budgets, etc. A resolution is a policy statement, if it is "corrupt", then it is out there in words for all to see. The corruption of the oil for food and other programs/agencies of the UN is not as easy to identify. Big difference.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
kallend 1,819 #62 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #63 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #64 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #65 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #66 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #67 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #68 January 30, 2007 I like steak, mashed potatoes, and asparagus.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #69 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? Bad example to be picking - Germany didn't abide by the 1918 Armistice and see how that turned out. Since Hitler killed himself during the fall, it's unlikely that he was a party to any treaty. Then the Cold War came and the (West) Germans were happy to have US forces in country. These days, have no idea if there's any point to the continued US presence at places like Ramstein and Heidleburg. It's not to watch over the Germans - more like Subic Bay as an advance position base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote...two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Saddam was forced to agree to OUR terms, there was no negotiating. Of course Saddam never recognized the no fly zones. I acknowledge they came after the cease fire, and I say tough shit to Saddam, he lost the war, and was continuing to do bad things. If the US loses a war to Iran as badly as Saddam lost in '91, then we would indeed be subject to them changing the terms at their discretion. Is there some doubt that an unconditional surrender means exactly that? Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire, so he was deserving of military attack based solely on that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... That is a lousy analogy. I disagree with the validity of your comparison. The resolutions were sponsored/written by the US, if the language didn't meet our desires, we could have withdrawn the resolutions completely - the UN would never have passed them. A resolution is not a program run by a beaurocracy with staff, budgets, etc. A resolution is a policy statement, if it is "corrupt", then it is out there in words for all to see. The corruption of the oil for food and other programs/agencies of the UN is not as easy to identify. Big difference.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
rushmc 18 #63 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #64 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #65 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #66 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #67 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #68 January 30, 2007 I like steak, mashed potatoes, and asparagus.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #69 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? Bad example to be picking - Germany didn't abide by the 1918 Armistice and see how that turned out. Since Hitler killed himself during the fall, it's unlikely that he was a party to any treaty. Then the Cold War came and the (West) Germans were happy to have US forces in country. These days, have no idea if there's any point to the continued US presence at places like Ramstein and Heidleburg. It's not to watch over the Germans - more like Subic Bay as an advance position base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote...two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Saddam was forced to agree to OUR terms, there was no negotiating. Of course Saddam never recognized the no fly zones. I acknowledge they came after the cease fire, and I say tough shit to Saddam, he lost the war, and was continuing to do bad things. If the US loses a war to Iran as badly as Saddam lost in '91, then we would indeed be subject to them changing the terms at their discretion. Is there some doubt that an unconditional surrender means exactly that? Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire, so he was deserving of military attack based solely on that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... That is a lousy analogy. I disagree with the validity of your comparison. The resolutions were sponsored/written by the US, if the language didn't meet our desires, we could have withdrawn the resolutions completely - the UN would never have passed them. A resolution is not a program run by a beaurocracy with staff, budgets, etc. A resolution is a policy statement, if it is "corrupt", then it is out there in words for all to see. The corruption of the oil for food and other programs/agencies of the UN is not as easy to identify. Big difference.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
kallend 1,819 #64 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #65 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #66 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #67 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #68 January 30, 2007 I like steak, mashed potatoes, and asparagus.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #69 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? Bad example to be picking - Germany didn't abide by the 1918 Armistice and see how that turned out. Since Hitler killed himself during the fall, it's unlikely that he was a party to any treaty. Then the Cold War came and the (West) Germans were happy to have US forces in country. These days, have no idea if there's any point to the continued US presence at places like Ramstein and Heidleburg. It's not to watch over the Germans - more like Subic Bay as an advance position base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote...two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Saddam was forced to agree to OUR terms, there was no negotiating. Of course Saddam never recognized the no fly zones. I acknowledge they came after the cease fire, and I say tough shit to Saddam, he lost the war, and was continuing to do bad things. If the US loses a war to Iran as badly as Saddam lost in '91, then we would indeed be subject to them changing the terms at their discretion. Is there some doubt that an unconditional surrender means exactly that? Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire, so he was deserving of military attack based solely on that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... That is a lousy analogy. I disagree with the validity of your comparison. The resolutions were sponsored/written by the US, if the language didn't meet our desires, we could have withdrawn the resolutions completely - the UN would never have passed them. A resolution is not a program run by a beaurocracy with staff, budgets, etc. A resolution is a policy statement, if it is "corrupt", then it is out there in words for all to see. The corruption of the oil for food and other programs/agencies of the UN is not as easy to identify. Big difference.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rushmc 18 #65 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #66 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #67 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #68 January 30, 2007 I like steak, mashed potatoes, and asparagus.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #69 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? Bad example to be picking - Germany didn't abide by the 1918 Armistice and see how that turned out. Since Hitler killed himself during the fall, it's unlikely that he was a party to any treaty. Then the Cold War came and the (West) Germans were happy to have US forces in country. These days, have no idea if there's any point to the continued US presence at places like Ramstein and Heidleburg. It's not to watch over the Germans - more like Subic Bay as an advance position base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote...two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Saddam was forced to agree to OUR terms, there was no negotiating. Of course Saddam never recognized the no fly zones. I acknowledge they came after the cease fire, and I say tough shit to Saddam, he lost the war, and was continuing to do bad things. If the US loses a war to Iran as badly as Saddam lost in '91, then we would indeed be subject to them changing the terms at their discretion. Is there some doubt that an unconditional surrender means exactly that? Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire, so he was deserving of military attack based solely on that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... That is a lousy analogy. I disagree with the validity of your comparison. The resolutions were sponsored/written by the US, if the language didn't meet our desires, we could have withdrawn the resolutions completely - the UN would never have passed them. A resolution is not a program run by a beaurocracy with staff, budgets, etc. A resolution is a policy statement, if it is "corrupt", then it is out there in words for all to see. The corruption of the oil for food and other programs/agencies of the UN is not as easy to identify. Big difference.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 1,819 #66 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #67 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #68 January 30, 2007 I like steak, mashed potatoes, and asparagus.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #69 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? Bad example to be picking - Germany didn't abide by the 1918 Armistice and see how that turned out. Since Hitler killed himself during the fall, it's unlikely that he was a party to any treaty. Then the Cold War came and the (West) Germans were happy to have US forces in country. These days, have no idea if there's any point to the continued US presence at places like Ramstein and Heidleburg. It's not to watch over the Germans - more like Subic Bay as an advance position base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote...two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Saddam was forced to agree to OUR terms, there was no negotiating. Of course Saddam never recognized the no fly zones. I acknowledge they came after the cease fire, and I say tough shit to Saddam, he lost the war, and was continuing to do bad things. If the US loses a war to Iran as badly as Saddam lost in '91, then we would indeed be subject to them changing the terms at their discretion. Is there some doubt that an unconditional surrender means exactly that? Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire, so he was deserving of military attack based solely on that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... That is a lousy analogy. I disagree with the validity of your comparison. The resolutions were sponsored/written by the US, if the language didn't meet our desires, we could have withdrawn the resolutions completely - the UN would never have passed them. A resolution is not a program run by a beaurocracy with staff, budgets, etc. A resolution is a policy statement, if it is "corrupt", then it is out there in words for all to see. The corruption of the oil for food and other programs/agencies of the UN is not as easy to identify. Big difference.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rushmc 18 #67 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #68 January 30, 2007 I like steak, mashed potatoes, and asparagus.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #69 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? Bad example to be picking - Germany didn't abide by the 1918 Armistice and see how that turned out. Since Hitler killed himself during the fall, it's unlikely that he was a party to any treaty. Then the Cold War came and the (West) Germans were happy to have US forces in country. These days, have no idea if there's any point to the continued US presence at places like Ramstein and Heidleburg. It's not to watch over the Germans - more like Subic Bay as an advance position base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote...two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Saddam was forced to agree to OUR terms, there was no negotiating. Of course Saddam never recognized the no fly zones. I acknowledge they came after the cease fire, and I say tough shit to Saddam, he lost the war, and was continuing to do bad things. If the US loses a war to Iran as badly as Saddam lost in '91, then we would indeed be subject to them changing the terms at their discretion. Is there some doubt that an unconditional surrender means exactly that? Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire, so he was deserving of military attack based solely on that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... That is a lousy analogy. I disagree with the validity of your comparison. The resolutions were sponsored/written by the US, if the language didn't meet our desires, we could have withdrawn the resolutions completely - the UN would never have passed them. A resolution is not a program run by a beaurocracy with staff, budgets, etc. A resolution is a policy statement, if it is "corrupt", then it is out there in words for all to see. The corruption of the oil for food and other programs/agencies of the UN is not as easy to identify. Big difference.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
ExAFO 0 #68 January 30, 2007 I like steak, mashed potatoes, and asparagus.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #69 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? Bad example to be picking - Germany didn't abide by the 1918 Armistice and see how that turned out. Since Hitler killed himself during the fall, it's unlikely that he was a party to any treaty. Then the Cold War came and the (West) Germans were happy to have US forces in country. These days, have no idea if there's any point to the continued US presence at places like Ramstein and Heidleburg. It's not to watch over the Germans - more like Subic Bay as an advance position base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote...two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Saddam was forced to agree to OUR terms, there was no negotiating. Of course Saddam never recognized the no fly zones. I acknowledge they came after the cease fire, and I say tough shit to Saddam, he lost the war, and was continuing to do bad things. If the US loses a war to Iran as badly as Saddam lost in '91, then we would indeed be subject to them changing the terms at their discretion. Is there some doubt that an unconditional surrender means exactly that? Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire, so he was deserving of military attack based solely on that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 98 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... That is a lousy analogy. I disagree with the validity of your comparison. The resolutions were sponsored/written by the US, if the language didn't meet our desires, we could have withdrawn the resolutions completely - the UN would never have passed them. A resolution is not a program run by a beaurocracy with staff, budgets, etc. A resolution is a policy statement, if it is "corrupt", then it is out there in words for all to see. The corruption of the oil for food and other programs/agencies of the UN is not as easy to identify. Big difference.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rushmc 18 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective. You should read the findal UNSCOM report. SH's Iraq was no threat to anyone in Spring 2003, and was unlikely to become one. Certainly not a threat worth the expenditure of 3,000+ US boy's lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $Trillion of taxpayer money. The invasion was based on a lie, the occupation was executed ineptly, and we shall be paying the price of the deception and ineptitude for decades. UNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... Well, they were right and Bush (and his acolytes like you) were wrong. Proof of the pudding, and all that. Maybe you should reconsider your allegiance to a lying incompetent administration WWWwwweeeel, if UNSCOM is your proof who can argue Weeeel, the CIA and the US Iraq Survey Group Report agreed with UNSCOM's findings. Try again. Doesnt change a thing.........but you can keep bowing at the alter of the US if you choose. I will keep an eye on my money guns freedom and security. Oh, and human rights OK, so you have no valid source to back up your claim. Cool. ....and neither do you huh Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #72 January 30, 2007 Quote Tell us why you discount the CIA's findings and the Iraq Survey Group, put there by the US govt. Ony the parts you referenced. You know, those you said came from a UN report. Sorry, I have no idea what this reply means. The final UNSCOM report, discounted by Bush in 2003, has subsequently been shown to be a correct assessment by both the CIA and by the US's own Iraq Survey Group. So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #73 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSaddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire so you are telling me, that iraq was still at war with the u.s. - fine. next thing you are going tell me is that there never was something line a peace treaty between hitler-germany and the u.s. next time your government dosn't like whats going on in europe they are going to bomb the shit out of us, because we are still at war? Bad example to be picking - Germany didn't abide by the 1918 Armistice and see how that turned out. Since Hitler killed himself during the fall, it's unlikely that he was a party to any treaty. Then the Cold War came and the (West) Germans were happy to have US forces in country. These days, have no idea if there's any point to the continued US presence at places like Ramstein and Heidleburg. It's not to watch over the Germans - more like Subic Bay as an advance position base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 98 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote...two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them? Saddam was forced to agree to OUR terms, there was no negotiating. Of course Saddam never recognized the no fly zones. I acknowledge they came after the cease fire, and I say tough shit to Saddam, he lost the war, and was continuing to do bad things. If the US loses a war to Iran as badly as Saddam lost in '91, then we would indeed be subject to them changing the terms at their discretion. Is there some doubt that an unconditional surrender means exactly that? Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire, so he was deserving of military attack based solely on that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 98 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteUNSCOM??? If it starts with UN is it a joke. This is a corupt organization that is leaning toward evil. You and others bash sites and sources as bought out or corput for puposes of profit. Yet you quote the organization that sets the standard for coruption and self service...... YET...... the RIGHTWINGNUTS have used the resolutions that Saadam did not comply with as an excuse to go to a preemptive war. That is called HYPOCRISY....or SMARMY if you will You cant have it both ways... That is a lousy analogy. I disagree with the validity of your comparison. The resolutions were sponsored/written by the US, if the language didn't meet our desires, we could have withdrawn the resolutions completely - the UN would never have passed them. A resolution is not a program run by a beaurocracy with staff, budgets, etc. A resolution is a policy statement, if it is "corrupt", then it is out there in words for all to see. The corruption of the oil for food and other programs/agencies of the UN is not as easy to identify. Big difference.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
